can a den leader remove a Cub Scout?

[The Blancmange]

 

 

the Council nor BSA would say anything it would violate privacy and disclosure laws related to minors. 

 

 

 

This is straying pretty far from the original scope of the thread, but again I have to ask, where?, what laws?   

 

There aren't any that would apply, except in the very limited area of Youth Protection disclosures.  

Edited October 20, 2017 by The Blancmange

[Snow Owl]

Where?  Show me a BSA rule that says if I, a registered volunteer, am falsely accused in the media of something improper, I cannot respond publicly to set the record straight.

 

I think you're confusing scouting with a school or medical provider, who do have statutory privacy obligations. 

 You can respond, it would not be wise nor advised. I do not see a den leader being specifically named so for them to throw themselves into the fray would be very unwise.  The Charter Organization also has a big say in this, As a leader you very well may have the survival of your unit in your hands.  Also,  as a leader you are covered by the BSA liability and E & O insurance, if you want to have that protection, you abide by their recommendations.   As soon as something like this occurs the gentleman in expensive suits call you.

 

disclaimer - I am not speaking about anything specifically related to this matter just general knowledge and observation.

[NJCubScouter]

Let say the scout was asked to leave for other behavior,  the Council nor BSA would say anything it would violate privacy and disclosure laws related to minors. 

 

Anything is possible, but the quote in the article from the council spokesperson says they are "evaluating" the matter - which suggests that they have reached no conclusion and it also suggests that the council was not consulted in advance.  If they had already reached a conclusion (either before or after the action was actually taken) it is more likely that they would have said something like "The council has investigated the matter and we have no further comment." As long as we're speaking hypothetically.

[Snow Owl]

Anything is possible, but the quote in the article from the council spokesperson says they are "evaluating" the matter - which suggests that they have reached no conclusion and it also suggests that the council was not consulted in advance.  If they had already reached a conclusion (either before or after the action was actually taken) it is more likely that they would have said something like "The council has investigated the matter and we have no further comment." As long as we're speaking hypothetically.

 

Agee completely

[The Blancmange]

This has now made the national news.   BSA and councils are keenly aware of their image and wants to avoid public relations debacles like the plague.  That's why they employ people like the "marketing director" who is quoted in the story.  I feel fairly confident that if there were a more rational explanation for this incident, it would have been put forth by now.  

[David CO]

This was very slanted reporting. I think the most important question is whether or not cameras and filming were allowed at the event. Is this really about a cub scout's pointed questions, or is it about a mother's unauthorized filming of a cub scout event and posting it online? 

 

I would have no problem with a unit booting a family for violating their policy on photographic and video privacy.

Edited October 20, 2017 by David CO

[The Blancmange]

This was very slanted reporting. I think the most important question is whether or not cameras and filming were allowed at the event. Is this really about a cub scout's pointed questions, or is it about a mother's unauthorized filming of a cub scout event being posted online? 

 

I would have no problem with a unit booting a family for violating their policy on photographic and video privacy.

 

If you believe that is the most important question here, then your priorities are quite skewed.  I'm more concerned for the scout who was dismissed without rational explanation.  

 

Your speculation about whether recording was permitted is a red herring.  It doesn't appear to be a surreptitiously recorded video; i'm guessing she was sitting there recording with her phone.   If the leaders had an issue with it, they would have asked her to stop.   I see videos of pinewood derbies and  pack awards posted all the time.  

Edited October 20, 2017 by The Blancmange

[qwazse]

DL comes and says, "It's either them or me."

CC replies, "But I just processed your application!"

DL: "Did you process anyone else's."

CC: "None came forward."

DL: "Your options: a) garner my replacement, or b) get the parent/boy out of my sight."

CC: "I see your point ...."

 

Not pretty, but it happens.

[mds3d]

There is a lot of speculation going on in this thread. I think we can only really form honest opinions from the facts we have availiable. Can I image a situation where this would be justified? Probably, but most of those would result in removal of the boy from the Pack entirely, not just the Den. However, given what we know, this does seem like an extreme reaction. 

 

A couple of other thoughts:

Regarding the recording, does anyone have a video/photo policy explicitly outlined in their unit?  I have never heard of one, and I don't imagine anyone saw this as a problem.  Maybe she is the mom that usually documents these kinds of things.  In the era of good cell phone video, it is nothing for me to decide to record something my kids are doing. I would have absolutely recorded this. 

 

Regarding the nature of his question, I have no problem believing this kid thought of this on his own.  Yes, his mom might be politically active, but if so that only increases the likelihood this scout has already been exposed to these kind of issues.  It is also a particularly contemporary one.  Also, it only makes sense that his mom would have influenced the question, what boy his age has political opinions different than their parents.  If this mom had already caused similar problems, who's brilliant idea was it to set up this meeting in the first place?

 

Regarding privacy: I deal with both HIPAA and FERPA on a daily basis, and while this is similar to the way schools and hospitals handle these kinds of things I am pretty sure the motivation is not the same. I am sure this is CYA on behalf of the council and national. They don't want to say anything specific until they decide if this was justified.  They might come down on the side of the unit and they might come down on the side of the boy. To say anything before that decision would not be wise.  I am sure the unit was given the same advice. Credit Mom for not naming names. I still can't come up with any regulations that keep anyone from providing more specifics that would support the units decision. They know that the longer they wait, the less likely they will have any impact on the image portrayed in the media.  This isn't likely to stay news for long.  

 

While this might have been an effort to keep a den leader, I truly hope it wasn't.  I would imagine that CC is regretting his decision now.  No individual volunteer is worth being on the news.

[cyclops]

Your speculation about whether recording was permitted is a red herring.  It doesn't appear to be a surreptitiously recorded video; i'm guessing she was sitting there recording with her phone.   If the leaders had an issue with it, they would have asked her to stop.   I see videos of pinewood derbies and  pack awards posted all the time.  

This is interesting and I have to agree with Blancmange on this. If a politician visits a scout meeting in the function of being a politician, what privacy expectation is there? It seems that this is a public figure making a public appearance. Why would there be a limit to what can be photographed at this event?

Edited October 21, 2017 by cyclops

[David CO]

If you believe that is the most important question here, then your priorities are quite skewed.  I'm more concerned for the scout who was dismissed without rational explanation.  

 

Your speculation about whether recording was permitted is a red herring.  It doesn't appear to be a surreptitiously recorded video; i'm guessing she was sitting there recording with her phone.   If the leaders had an issue with it, they would have asked her to stop.   I see videos of pinewood derbies and  pack awards posted all the time.  

 

I don't think so. Except for the potential privacy issue, I think this whole thing is just plain silly.

 

We move kids from den to den, and patrol to patrol, all the time. It's like a teacher moving a kids desk or a principal changing a kid's classroom. It is no big deal.

[David CO]

  No individual volunteer is worth being on the news.

 

I don't mind being on the news. I have held public office, so I have been in the newspapers plenty of times. It doesn't scare me. I do, however, mind being misquoted or having my position mischaracterized by a politically biased or sensationalistic press.

 

I would never throw an employee or volunteer under the bus just to avoid the glare of the press. Never.

[David CO]

This is interesting and I have to agree with Blancmange on this. If a politician visits a scout meeting in the function of being a politician, what privacy expectation is there? It seems that this is a public figure making a public appearance. Why would there be a limit to what can be photographed at this event?

 

Ever since the Democratic Convention where a young girl took the podium to mock Dick Chaney (and suggest that he needed a time out), it has been understood by politicians, particularly those on the right, that some people, particularly those on the left, will try to use children to score cheap shots.

 

So, it is not all that unusual for a politician to specify "no cameras" during the "Q and A" as a condition for accepting an appearance involving children.

 

BSA isn't supposed to allow people to use scouts, in uniform, for partisan political activity. I do see some value in having office holders participate in a private, off-the-record conversation with scouts as an activity to promote civic awareness and good citizenship, but these events should never be used to create a politically divisive "gotcha" moment.

 

Yes, there really is a very good reason for politicians to limit what can be photographed at these events. There would be a good reason for BSA to limit it as well.

Edited October 22, 2017 by David CO

[Tampa Turtle]

This has now made the national news.   BSA and councils are keenly aware of their image and wants to avoid public relations debacles like the plague.  That's why they employ people like the "marketing director" who is quoted in the story.  I feel fairly confident that if there were a more rational explanation for this incident, it would have been put forth by now.  

 

Saw it on BBC...made the International News. Another example for a PR class! Considering how many volunteers and situations that must come up I am surprised that this is not more of an issue...

[Tampa Turtle]

 

 

Yes, there really is a very good reason for politicians to limit what can be photographed at these events. There would be a good reason for BSA to limit it as well.

I have seen it abused both ways. We had an outgoing Mayor give a Looney-Tunes address at a Troop/Church fundraiser that was self serving and very dark. We felt a bit used and stopped inviting some speakers and asked to keep things non-political. I have also seen snarky scouters of both political wings mutter and disrupt ceremonies attended by an official of the wrong political pride.